Re: [Talk-us] Talk-us Digest, Vol 153, Issue 6

[Bob Gambrel]

Cycleway crossing

At the risk of opening this discussion too far, here is the way I handle
exactly this situation.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=id#map=21/45.14100/-93.38143

Ignore any slight mis-alignment between aerial photos and the location of
the nodes and ways. I used Mapbox and things line up fine with it. Other
images sources not quite as well.

Background: in my area almost all "trails" are dual use (bike & foot) so I
use the ID pre-set for Cycle & Foot Path. I also set the pavement type, the
bike-ped separation, one-wayness, and width.  These tags look like:

bicycle=designated
foot=designated
highway=cycleway
name=Rush Creek Regional Trail
oneway=no
segregated=no
surface=asphalt
width=3

For crosswalks when I am doing detailed mapping (which I did for this
area), I do not connect the trail to the road until I have done the
following: I use the ID presets for either marked or unmarked crossing. I
do it by splitting the way at both curbs (usually), then picking the
appropriate preset. I then set foot and bicycles access to designated
(reason below). I then adjust surface type, tactile paving (if known) and
refuge island (almost always no). By splitting first, then connecting
later, ID automatically sets the crossing point (node) as a marked or
unmarked crossing and I don't have to.

In this crosswalk the tagging looks like:

bicycle=designated
crossing=marked
crossing:island=no
footway=crossing
highway=footway
name=Rush Creek Regional Trail
segregated=no
surface=asphalt
width=3

I believe the above follows the wiki, provides lots of very correct
information, and, btw, renders very nicely (e.g. in OSMAND).

My rationale for setting the access to designated: in our  area these 3
meter asphalt trails are designed for both foot and bike traffic. The
trails are designated for that. If a crosswalk connects two segments (as
does this) I assume the crosswalk is designated as well.

If I am in a hurry and cannot do a detailed job on the crosswalk, I connect
the crossing ways and let ID put in a simple crossing node. I usually
modify it to be marked or unmarked.



On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 1:35 PM  wrote:

> Send Talk-us mailing list submissions to
> talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> talk-us-requ...@openstreetmap.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> talk-us-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Talk-us digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Cycleway Crossings (Doug Peterson)
>2. Re: Cycleway Crossings (Paul Johnson)
>3. Re: Cycleway Crossings (Mateusz Konieczny)
>4. Re: Cycleway Crossings (Natfoot)
>5. Re: Cycleway Crossings (Paul Johnson)
>6. Re: Cycleway Crossings (Doug Peterson)
>7. Re: Cycleway Crossings (James Umbanhowar)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2020 07:11:01 -0400 (EDT)
> From: "Doug Peterson" 
> To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [Talk-us] Cycleway Crossings
> Message-ID: <1596798661.2...@dpeters2.dyndns.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> I have noticed in my area where some people have been adding crossings to
> a designated cycleway (named and signed as a bike trail). The crossings are
> fine. It is that the crossing is then been changed to a footway.
>
> I have looked at the highway=cycleway wiki and not seen anything
> addressing crossings. There was one screenshot that seemed to show
> intersections or crossings with roads remaining as cycleways. Before I made
> any effort on changing these back I wanted to ask if there was any other
> knowledge out there about this.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Doug
>
> --
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 08:44:19 -0500
> From: Paul Johnson 
> To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list 
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Cycleway Crossings
> Message-ID:
> <
> campm96ox+3tsnak80hwscx_xw7cbco-gxo8fkxxx-cdjtrz...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 6:11 AM Doug Peterson <
> dougpeter...@dpeters2.dyndns.org> wrote:
>
> > I have noticed in my area where some people have been adding crossings to
> > a designated cycleway (named and signed as a bike trail). The crossings
> are
> > fine. It is that the crossing is then been changed to a footway.
> >
>
> Can we get an example?
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20200807/c31a1f93/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> --
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 19:12:33 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Mateusz Konieczny 
> To: Doug Peterson 
> Cc: Talk Us 
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Cycleway Crossings

Re: [Talk-us] Talk-us Digest, Vol 153, Issue 3

[Bob Gambrel]

It seems to me that having a relationship is absolutely appropriate and
that it should have the name of entire trail/route, just as you have done.

It also seems to me that having a name on individual segments (the local
name) is also appropriate. I don't think this is inconsistent and in fact,
seems very desirable. Highway 65 (a state route that has an OSM relation,
and is named as such in the relation) also has segments in some places that
are named "Central Avenue" by the city and locals, and in other places are
named "Highway 65", again by the locals.

I don't think labeling the individual segments maps for the renderer
primarily. It attaches a local name to the individual way, which is what
OSM expects, I believe. It also has rendering advantages, which makes the
map more useful to real people, not just cartographers.

IMHO

On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 6:02 AM  wrote:

> Send Talk-us mailing list submissions to
> talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> talk-us-requ...@openstreetmap.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> talk-us-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Talk-us digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Mtb Route Relations (Nathan Hartley)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2020 13:12:04 -0400
> From: Nathan Hartley 
> To: Mike Thompson 
> Cc: Open Street Map Talk-US 
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Mtb Route Relations
> Message-ID:
> <
> caae2jozhu015m-mt8ftq8eaxq0f03708r-7nd6h0td06y_x...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
>  Following this thread.
>
> I have the same question, after recently moving the names that folks had
> added to the way (and bridge) segments, of a linear park spanning lower
> Michigan, to the relations representing the trail segment. The entire trail
> is known as " The Great Lake-to-Lake Trails" [image: relation]
>  7962984
> , whereas it has segments known by other
> names. For instance, 22 miles are also known as the "Mike Levine Lakelands
> Trail State Park" [image: relation]
>  272564
> . I felt this was the most accurate way
> to
> map this trail. However, the temptation is strong to "map for the
> renderer", after seeing the trail names disappear from the rendered map
> .
>
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 6:55 PM Mike Thompson  wrote:
>
> > Let's say you have a trail in the US National Forest that was
> specifically
> > created for mountain biking. It has a name and a FS trail number. It is
> > represented in OSM by three ways currently: before a bridge, the bridge,
> > and after the bridge.
> >
> > Is this a good candidate for a route relation?
> > Should name=* tag appear just on the relation, or on all of the member
> > ways as well?
> > Should ref=* tag appear just on the relation, or on all of the members as
> > well?
> >
> > I am assuming that physical and legal access tags should only appear on
> > the member ways, even if every member has the same value, right?
> >
> > Just don't want to break anything...
> >
> > Mike
> > ___
> > Talk-us mailing list
> > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> >
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20200804/7c00b018/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> --
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
> --
>
> End of Talk-us Digest, Vol 153, Issue 3
> ***
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Talk-us Digest, Vol 152, Issue 6

[Bob Gambrel]

As an ID editor user I thought of an improvement to it overnight wrt Tiger
data. I submitted a feature request. Just thought that something like this
might be useful within other editors too (if your workflow is like mine). I
was inspired by the Tiger reviewed=no discussion and my desire to tame the
tiger. I was concerned about effort (to find a bunch of ways to delete the
tag that I have just recently edited enough to remove the tag, but didn't
remove the tags) to switch back and forth between OT and ID. Text of my
request:

*Use case: I am systematically updating a long highway or extended bike
route consisting of many ways, and for each new way (segment) that I touch,
I want to be warned in the editor that the way meets certain criteria that
I select (such as tiger:reviewed=no). As in overpass-turbo, I would be
allowed to type in the query. If the particular way I am now touching some
distinctive message or visual indicator would appear informing me that the
way meets the criteria.*

*Value to me: I can systematically walk the extended route and whenever a
specific way meets the criteria I specify I am notified and I can address
it.*

*The visual indicator could be something like: the selected item blinks if
the criteria is [sic] met. Or, a message pops up in the editing window
(left pane) that tells me the criteria are met. (Similar to the
notifications that I should consider a tunnel or bridge when I am on a way
that crosses a river).*

*I can imagine using many different criteria just as I would in
overpass-turbo. I might be interested in criteria for buildings. So ways,
areas, points might all have some sort of criteria filter. (Cool if you
could allow me to set 3 different criteria). But not neccessary [sic].*

*Like overpass-turbo allowing a complex query expression with wildcards
would be nice too.*

*For now a simple query for the specific item touched would be simple and
adequate.*

On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 6:03 AM  wrote:

> Send Talk-us mailing list submissions to
> talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> talk-us-requ...@openstreetmap.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> talk-us-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Talk-us digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Streaming JOSM -- suggestions? (stevea)
>2. Re: Streaming JOSM -- suggestions? (stevea)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 17:19:57 -0700
> From: stevea 
> To: Tod Fitch 
> Cc: talk-us , Bob Gambrel
> 
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Streaming JOSM -- suggestions?
> Message-ID: 
> Content-Type: text/plain;   charset=us-ascii
>
> On Jul 7, 2020, at 5:17 PM, Tod Fitch  wrote:
> > Please accept my apology for implying using the search for an automated
> edit.
> >
> > I assumed the same type of work flow I am doing now: Using the results
> of the query to direct my attention to what I want to fix. Still need to
> examine the location and available information to decide, on an object by
> object basis, if the data in OSM meets your standards or needs further
> improvement before doing something like removing the tiger:reviewed tag.
>
> Sure, I don't think an apology is necessary, as we're all adults here (I
> think!) and take responsibility for our actions.  Sometimes, we are not
> aware that our actions are like pulling a machine gun trigger or tipping
> over an entire bucket of paint:  relatively minor actions on our part but
> which have a profound effect on the map's data.
>
> Be aware, the map will be fine.
>
> SteveA
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 18:49:07 -0700
> From: stevea 
> To: Tod Fitch , talk-us
> 
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Streaming JOSM -- suggestions?
> Message-ID: <1c7ef49d-69c1-4208-8053-60b13118e...@softworkers.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;   charset=us-ascii
>
> I think we're saying the same thing:  I use OT to curate datasets and
> sometimes I'll specifically clean up their TIGER data, like when that is
> exactly what I curate in my query.  Other times, I'll fix TIGER data
> otherwise.  I'm deliberate in all cases and I believe all good OSM editors
> are deliberate, too.  (Those who find themselves faced with TIGER data, as
> some of us are).  As long as "OT query results" don't ridiculously get
> out-of-control turning into automated edits, we're good.  I don't think
> that happens (often), but if you wanted to make it a sh

Re: [Talk-us] Streaming JOSM -- suggestions?

[Bob Gambrel]

A very good answer stevea. I suspect the changes I have been making would
be appropriate enough for removing tiger_reviewed=no.

1) almost always have driven the road as passenger taking notes in OSMAND+
about pavement type
2) in ID carefully aligning the roads
3) in ID verifying that an extra road doesn't exist by looking at several
aerial phots sources before deleting
4) setting pavement tpe
5) setting lane counts
6) putting in traffic signals where known
7) noting stop signs where possible and adding stop sign nodes

Have been less likely to change road type. For example have left minor
rural roads as residential if there are farms on it. I have made sure that
service roads and driveways are not naked as residential.

>From now on I will get rid of the tag as I walk through an area.

Thanks for the two links and advice. Am not ready to exhaustively do an
area by using OT. For now just concentration on roads that I have been on
and taken notes about and have created and uploaded traces for.

On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 5:43 PM stevea  wrote:

> Bob, thank you for asking.
>
> Good entry points for the history and what to do with TIGER data are
> https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/TIGER and https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/TIGER_fixup
> (respectively).  One of the more important things you CAN do is that if you
> truly do "fix up" TIGER data to about as good as it can be today (given
> local knowledge — best — or aerial / satellite data like Esri or Bing) is
> to remove the tiger_reviewed=no tag.  As the latter wiki says, "the
> practice to remove this tag varies" but I believe you should feel confident
> removing it when you are personally proud of the resultant data in OSM
> being truly reflective of what is in reality as you upload the changeset
> containing it.  And, it isn't simply "alignment" being accurate, all of the
> tags on that datum should be snappy, modern and correct, too.  It's not
> hard, and can even be fun with some practice.
>
> There used to be some excellent tools for visualizing areas where TIGER
> Review is needed, unfortunately, these are either old, fully deprecated or
> replaced by less-than-as-useful tools (imo).  It may be that Overpass Turbo
> (OT) queries suit you, I use them in my large (data, geographically) state
> of California on TIGER rail data, and the results (while somewhat large)
> are not overwhelming, either to browsers, editors (like JOSM) where you
> might edit them (or subsets of them) or humans.  However, for highway=*
> data, especially in a large (data, geographically) state where little TIGER
> Review has already completed, you may very well find OT does get
> overwhelmed.  Try the query I (and others) use for California/Railroads:
>
> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/PSt
>
> noting that it is easy to change the geocodeArea to your state and
> "way[railway]" to something like "way[highway=tertiary]"
>
> Of course, you are asking the OT server to digest large amounts of data as
> you do so, be prepared to (first) increase the timeout value (try
> one-minute-at-a-time bump-ups, from 180 to 240, from 240 to 300...) and
> (second) you might need to decrease the geocodeArea to a (unique) county,
> rather than a whole state-at-a-time.  Good luck, have fun, share with your
> OSM friends how this can be a fun activity in your local area and let's
> slay the TIGER dragon!
>
> SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Talk-us Digest, Vol 152, Issue 3

[Bob Gambrel]

Streaming JOSM -- TIGER

I would like very much to know some guidelines about what to do with TIGER
data. I run across it all the time and think maybe I should leave some
indication that the data has been verified or changed or something. I just
don't know what I should do so leave the TIGER data alone. Maybe there is
this guidance somewhere already?

On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 6:04 AM  wrote:

> Send Talk-us mailing list submissions to
> talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> talk-us-requ...@openstreetmap.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> talk-us-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Talk-us digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Streaming JOSM -- suggestions? (Martijn van Exel)
>2. Re: Streaming JOSM -- suggestions? (stevea)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2020 12:28:18 -0600
> From: Martijn van Exel 
> To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [Talk-us] Streaming JOSM -- suggestions?
> Message-ID: 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> Hi all,
>
> I've been running 'Streaming JOSM' sessions on Tuesday evenings for the
> past couple of weeks and I am planning to do at least one more tomorrow
> at 7pm Mountain time[0].
>
> The original idea stemmed from a tweet about cleaning up TIGER[1] and
> that is what I have been streaming the past couple of weeks.
>
> I would like to do something different and would love to hear your
> suggestions. What would you like to watch me map? (Assuming you'd be
> interested in watching a random person map OSM in the first place...)
>
> Suggestions very welcome!
>
> Martijn
>
> [0] Links to join here:
> https://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Utah/events/271617242/
>
> [1] https://twitter.com/mvexel/status/1274812416337952768
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2020 16:35:20 -0700
> From: stevea 
> To: Martijn van Exel 
> Cc: talk-us 
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Streaming JOSM -- suggestions?
> Message-ID: <8854830b-5603-47f4-9612-cf4c08e98...@softworkers.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;   charset=us-ascii
>
> Hello again, Martijn:  This might not be a perfect fit, but perhaps
> helpful.  I (and others) have refined how TIGER data for rail in the USA
> might or should be "Reviewed" (cleaned up over the long term) at
>
>
> https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/United_States/Railroads#Editing_Railroads_starting_from_TIGER_data
>
> Like TIGER data themselves, this is rather rough, but it has proven to
> "get the job done," even as it might do so slowly.
>
> If you could make a similar write-up (text-based instructions of your
> workflow to clean up TIGER data, whether roads, rail or whatever) that gets
> shared widely, I think many people might find that helpful.  It is the
> experience of what people do and how they do it that makes for this sort of
> transfer of experience at "how to map" quite successful in OSM.  I've seen
> it, it works and people tend to not only like it, they sort of crave it.
>
> "When the student is ready, the teacher arrives."  Sometimes this is a
> "live streaming JOSM editing session," (great!), sometimes it's a "here are
> the steps of my workflow, read them, re-create them at your own pace, I
> hope you can learn from my examples."
>
> You never know!
>
> Thank you for offering your "streaming JOSM" session, it's a great idea,
> SteveA
>
>
> --
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
> --
>
> End of Talk-us Digest, Vol 152, Issue 3
> ***
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] USFS Roads - name and ref

[Bob Gambrel]

Paul's in depth answer of my question was very helpful. Luckily I am not
concentrating on road/highway routes. I like the concept of:

We should be moving forward towards
all routes being tagged in a route relation so we can phase out route
attributes on ways, freeing those up for *the way's attributes.*

That intuitively makes sense. It seems to me that most routes these days
are really a collection of ways (collected by the route relation). I
explained this to some city planners, newer to OSM than I was, with three
examples (an Interstate that actually includes a Ferry, clearly not part of
a single paved way, a bus route traversing many different streets, and the
MRT (Miss. River Trail) which consists of streets, highways, bike paths,
...)

Keeping the data important to the way on the way and the data relevant to
the route in the relation is perfect. (Well at least very good)
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] USFS Roads - name and ref

[Bob Gambrel]

Paul Johnson says

Ultimately consider adding a route relation with network=US:NSFR:Forest
Name:FH/FR as well so we can finally kill off route tagging on things that
are not routes.


I am not doing any mapping for forest roads, but the above caught my eye. I
am doing a lot of bike path/trail mapping as well as mapping cycle routes.
I understand the idea of adding a route relation. What confuses me a little
above is:

 so we can finally kill off route tagging on things that
are not routes.

I think you might be saying that there are ways that seem to have a route
name in the name field and they shouldn't. Instead they should have the way
be part of a relation that has the name of the route.

Please be patient if I am using some wrong terms above. Still learning
the OSM lingo. I am really just trying to understand the last part of what
you said. (Especially if you think it might apply to cycle routes too)
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] How to map snowmobile trails in US?

[Bob Gambrel]

Thanks for all the ideas so far. I like the route (relationship) approach
and that seems very appropriate. Unfortunately I did not do the mapping and
am just trying to figure out how much to get involved in this snowmobile
project yet (am concentrating on bike paths, etc for now).

In my neck of woods some parts of the snowmobile routes are on existing or
newly created paths/tracks/etc. They can be mapped easily. I understand how
to handle them. Other parts are in ditches near side of the road, along
fences near Interstate highways, on property lines between farms, etc. In
those area there is no way that would be mapped during the summer. So in
some sense it seems the right thing to do is to have a way there, of some
type, that represents something that is invisible in summer but part of a
snowmobile route.

So imagine this simple example. A path (of some sort) goes from point A to
B. Between points B and C there is no way (no path, road, highway, cycle
way, foot path, track, etc. Then there is another path of some sort between
points C and D. So the relationship (a snowmobile route) includes ways
"AB", "BC" and "CD". What type of way should "BC" be?

This area shows such a snowmobile trail:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=17/45.83596/-95.31124

Much of it is not along any visible way of any sort. It looks like part of
it could be on an existing (but not mapped unpaved service road) and part
of it crosses a stream next to (but probably on) an unmapped little bridge.
If all the ways that were mappable were actually mapped, most of the
snomobile trail would still be on unmapped (unmappable) "invisible in the
summer" ways.

I can transfer this thread/discussion to another forum (tagging?) if
appropriate. Thank you for all your energy and patience so far!

On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 6:37 PM Dave Swarthout 
wrote:

> > Please only use highway=track when there is an forestry or agricultural
> road / track which is passable by 2-track vehicles such as farm tractors,
> logging trucks, or 4wd cars
> +1
>
> You might better use something like highway=path which allows for use by
> multiple vehicle types (snowmobile, ATC, ATV) as well as on foot via
> snowshoe or ski. Unless of course, it overlaps an agricultural or logging
> track.
>
> On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 11:14 PM Joseph Eisenberg <
> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Winter-only snowmobile routes are mapped if they are signed. Create a
>> route relation with type=route + route=snowmobile (used 141 times) - see
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aroute%3Dsnowmobile
>>
>> Please only use highway=track when there is an forestry or agricultural
>> road / track which is passable by 2-track vehicles such as farm tractors,
>> logging trucks, or 4wd cars.
>>
>> -- Joseph Eisenberg
>>
>> (You might try the Tagging mailing list for questions about how to tag
>> something: tagg...@openstreetmap.org)
>>
>> On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 8:43 AM Kevin Broderick 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Ideally, I'd say that most snowmobile routes should be relations, not
>>> ways. At least in the places I'm familiar with (New England and Montana), a
>>> significant portion of the snowmobile trail network overlaps with seasonal
>>> roads that are open to wheeled traffic in some conditions. Having the
>>> summer ground truth mapped accurately is hugely helpful if you're poking
>>> around in the summer, whether it be hiking, biking, riding an on/off-road
>>> motorcycle, etc; as you noted, some snowmachine trails are virtually
>>> invisible in the summer and may even be impassable (I'm familiar with some
>>> spots in Vermont where the snowmachine trails transit across swamp or
>>> marshland once it's frozen—not something you want to try to cross on foot
>>> or wheeled vehicle).
>>>
>>> Around here, there's also the side issue of someone having mapped one of
>>> the ITS routes as a track for a long distance, when it actually should be a
>>> series of ways with different data, as some parts are well-maintained
>>> gravel roads in the summer, others are less-well-maintained, some are
>>> public ways and others aren't.
>>>
>>> To answer the question about sections that specifically cross fields:
>>> I'd still be tempted to tag that as highway=track, with appropriate access
>>> and surface tags. I'm not sure it's the best way to do it, but I can't come
>>> up with a better way, and the track in question would likely be passable
>>> with permission and the right vehicle.
>>>
>>> As for sections that cross [frozen] marshes, or other areas that aren't
>>> passable when the gr

[Talk-us] How to map snowmobile trails in US?

[Bob Gambrel]

Am newby to talk-us. This may have been discussed in the past but not handy
with searching archives yet.

In Minnesota I have seen snowmobile trails mapped in OSM as follows:

highway=track
snowmobile=designated
surface=unpaved

In both aerial photos and observation on the ground, there is almost always
no track visible. In the winter, with snow cover, the location of the track
is visible because it is compacted by snowmobiles. In the spring there
might be some evidence in areas with grasses that would have been tamped
down by the snowmobiles.

Question: Is this the right way to map snowmobile trails? The thing that
concerns me, of course, is the use of "track" because of it is not apparent
most of the time.

Another question: is there a forum or expert group or something that
discusses this? I would like to join that conversation if there is  one
going on.

I think it is a good idea to map these trails. It seems there maybe should
be another type of highway? Something like: "not visible on the ground most
of the year". Note that ice_road=yes is not appropriate here (in most
cases) as (in most cases) these trails are not on frozen water bodies.

As further info, where I was able to observe there are a number of signs
posted such as stop signs, caution signs, etc. So there clearly is
government involvement.

Any thoughts?
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us